|
Cinema
Advertising Study Ignores Reality
Mon, 26 May
2003 17:58:10 -0400
BadAds.org
Web Log Reprinted courtesy badads.org.
Dear BadAds
Member:
Whenever you
read a news article about a study that doesn't jibe with your
own experience, you have to examine the study itself and draw
your own conclusions.
 Today's
example is a Reuters story about a study of cinema advertising
conducted by the marketing research firm Arbitron, in consultation
with the National Association of Theater Owners and the Cinema
Advertising Council. As you might expect from research by those
who sell ad space in theaters, the study-lovingly titled "The
Arbitron Cinema Advertising Study: Appointment Viewing by Young,
Affluent, Captive Audiences" (Warning: PDF file) -- extols
the virtue of creating an "enriched" theater environment
filled with pre-movie ads, video kiosks, audio ads, posters, and
other sales tactics.
The Reuters
story, written by Bob Tourtellotte, starts off with this stunning
fact: "A study released on Tuesday showed two-thirds of moviegoers
do not mind watching advertisements before a film begins, a statistic
that should buttress efforts to put more ads in theaters."
The study
finds, and Tourtellotte obligingly reports, that half of moviegoers
agree "the ads you see before the movies are more interesting
than the ads you see on TV" and that more moviegoers (67%
to 49%) find advertising in the cinema acceptable compared with
advertising online.
The article
also includes a quote from Arbitron's president of new ventures,
Pierre Bouvard: "Our initial thought was that there would
be some consumer anger. But contrary to that, the more people
go to the movies, the more they don't mind the ads."
Why did Reuters
report this study and quote industry personnel as if Reuters were
also a member of the Cinema Advertising Council? Let's look at
the study ourselves and draw our own conclusions.
First of all,
based on Arbitron's own numbers, one-third of moviegoers do mind
watching advertisements before a film begins. Contrary to Bouvard's
suggestion, forcing ads on an audience does generate anger in
some. Thus we have anti-movie ad sites such as Didn't I Already
Pay For This Movie? (http://www.didntialreadypayforthismovie.com/)
and the Captive Motion Picture Audience of America (http://www.captiveaudience.org/)
to fight against this trend. In fact, in February 2003, lawsuits
were filed against two theater chains that showed ads at the announced
start time instead of the movie itself (http://www.badads.org/february03.shtml).
Second, the
Arbitron study shows that those who attend movies less frequently
find ads before movies more objectionable. The two of us, for
example, refuse to visit theater chains like Showcase and Hoyts
because they show non-trailer ads before features. If a movie
doesn't make it to one of the independent theaters near us-theaters
that usually have lower ticket prices, mind you-we wait for the
video. If more theaters decide to show pre-movie ads, they will
lose customers like us.
 Third,
people don't go to the movies to see ads, so it's irrelevant that
some prefer ads in the cinema to ads on television or the Internet.
In fact, with half of the survey respondents not finding movie
advertising more interesting than ads on TV, cinema owners would
be crazy to show ads, make their theaters less inviting, and give
those folks another reason to stay home.
In general,
Arbitron tries to present cinema advertising two ways. It states
that "short-form programming, movie previews and compelling
advertising are all part of the movie experience today."
Eighty-five percent of moviegoers, says Arbitron, find theaters
better today than in the past, therefore "they like the changes
that are happening at their local cinema." While respondents
were likely thinking about improved sound systems and seating,
Arbitron wants readers to think those changes include pre-movie
ads and commercial kiosks.
At the same
time Arbitron presents pre-movie ads as ubiquitous and accepted,
it states that only a tiny fraction of the $800 million spent
on pre-movie ads in 2000 was spent within the U.S. Most of those
funds were spent in non-American theaters-which means the average
American moviegoer's experience with these ads is small to non-existent
and Arbitron's findings are therefore not representative of the
market as a whole.
Arbitron is
clearly using the data it gathered, however contradictory and
meaningless it might be, to encourage marketers to think of moviegoers
as yet another crop waiting and eager to be harvested. As the
study puts it, "Cinema advertising is unique in that it reaches
an attentive, captive audience."
Furthermore,
cinema advertising "offers a unique opportunity to reach
consumers. Going to the movies is a happy, transforming experience
with family and friends-an environment where consumers are in
a frame of mind to be entertained and receptive to advertising
messages. Moviegoers sit comfortably in their seats. There is
no remote control to zap through channels and miss the advertising.
Theaters are a destination of choice and advertisers have the
full attention of the moviegoer."
Arbitron is
eager to help theater chains take "a happy, transforming
experience" and reduce it to nothing more than another advertising
opportunity through the use of misleading and biased statistics.
Don't let the company get away with it.
1. Write to
Arbitron and explain why the conclusions it draws in its "Cinema
Advertising Study" are misleading:
Pierre Bouvard,
President, International & New Ventures
Phone: 212-887-1348
E-mail: pierre.bouvard@arbitron.com
Joan FitzGerald,
Director, New Product Development
Phone: 443-259-7551
E-mail: joan.fitzgerald@arbitron.com
Paul LeFort,
Manager, Business Development
Arbitron Outdoor
Phone: 310-824-6662
E-mail: paul.lefort@arbitron.com
2. Write or
call the theater chains in your neighborhood and tell them that
you find ads other than trailers unacceptable. Even better, move
your moviegoing business to theaters that refuse to show such
ads. Contact information for most chains is available on BadAds
(http://www.badads.org/movies.shtml).
3. Recommend
theaters that don't show ads to others. Make others aware of this
issue and encourage them to take their business elsewhere. Kelly
at Shiny Blue Grasshopper offers a list of no-ad theaters (http://www.shinybluegrasshopper.com/nomovieads/)
but the list is still uncomfortably small. Break away from the
chains, explore smaller theaters, and share your findings with
her.
One final "warning" from Arbitron: "Since cinema advertising
is still new, advertisers have the ability to 'own the medium'
and build frequency for their target consumer in an environment
where there is an attentive, captive audience."
Advertisers
want to "own the medium" and the right to pummel you
with ads whenever they choose. It's not too late, though, to tell
them to buzz off and keep their pollution out of theaters. Write
today and make your voice heard.
Cheers,
Eric & Linda
To subscribe
or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.cybernothing.org/mailman/listinfo/badads
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to badads-request@lists.cybernothing.org
|
